If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Why do you endlessly ignore the fact Canada was not aligned in terms of rules and standards, and not an existing free trade deal as we are? Thier deal took a long time from a point of ground zero, not an established significant free trading partner.

I don't. They've started from no real common ground and are adding it, whilst we're starting from being intermingled and having to unravel it. Neither is simple, I don't know which is harder, but I assume it'll be in the same order of magnitude.

So the EU deal is more likely to take 10 years than 1.

Also Ive never said we will get EXACTLY the same deal as now, but a good enough deal, but with all the benefits full independence affords.

And what's a good enough deal?

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Yes and in addition to facing a potential loss of an important market they're also facing Trumps NATO bill (2%of GDP for all members) and the bill for the loss of the UKs EU club fee.

Do you understand how (a) NATO and (b) Trump work?

The NATO bill Trump is going on about, is each country aiming to spend 2% of GDP on defense, locally. No-one is going to be giving the US 2% of their GDP, and whilst Trump will make a lot of noise and show his ignorance, he'll back down like he always does.

If we stop paying a fee (something you want anyway), then that money is gone. We can use a continued fee as a bargaining position, but that'd make a lot of you apoplectic. So the EU will likely get less money from us, spend less money on us, and have to make a few changes in it's best interests. I'm not sure where the cuts will come from or how long they'll take to effect.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Personally, I'd put everything in to the mix.

EU citizens rights; the exit bill; physical borders; everything.

This is no time for soft sentiment. We want things; the EU want things. Once the consequences of no deal become crystal clear for both sides the appetite to negotiate will be there.

Yeah I think we need a full agenda and lock a representative from each state in a hotel for a week or 2 to get a high level approach figured out, then pass it on to the administrators to get all the details defined and ratified. I can't see it happening though; everyone has other things to get on with too.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you understand how (a) NATO and (b) Trump work?

The NATO bill Trump is going on about, is each country aiming to spend 2% of GDP on defense, locally. No-one is going to be giving the US 2% of their GDP, and whilst Trump will make a lot of noise and show his ignorance, he'll back down like he always does.

If we stop paying a fee (something you want anyway), then that money is gone. We can use a continued fee as a bargaining position, but that'd make a lot of you apoplectic. So the EU will likely get less money from us, spend less money on us, and have to make a few changes in it's best interests. I'm not sure where the cuts will come from or how long they'll take to effect.

This thread isn't about either NATO or Trump but as you brought it up, let me ask you why America should pay to defend countries that aren't willing to spend money to defend themselves?

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah I think we need a full agenda and lock a representative from each state in a hotel for a week or 2 to get a high level approach figured out, then pass it on to the administrators to get all the details defined and ratified. I can't see it happening though; everyone has other things to get on with too.

If you leave it in the hands of the lawyers on both sides then they will just use it as an opportunity to drag the whole thing out for vast profit in their own pockets.

Why should it be complex? We've been working together for 40 years for hecks sake. It's not like creating a new trading arrangement.

Yes. Of course, politically, Juncker and Barnier could seek to extract a heavy price, but they know this will come with a cost.

If UK tanks then Ireland is down the pan. It's that simple. Do the EU deal with ailing Euro economies well? The evidence from Greece suggests not.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

This thread isn't about either NATO or Trump but as you brought it up, let me ask you why America should pay to defend countries that aren't willing to spend money to defend themselves?

Because it's expensive being an imperial power. The average working class Brit was much better off financially when 50% of Britain's time and energy stopped being spent on trying to force Malaysians to sing God Save the Queen and interring Africans in concentration camps.


The quid pro quo of being a vassal, which includes the UK as part of the Pax Americana, is that you cede being able to project power beyond your own borders independently in exchange for security.

Trump wants America's vassals to start paying to oppress themselves, partly this is a bit optimistic, partly it's a sign of American imperial decline (the Romans tried to do this as their influence and appetite for endless occupation waned). Largely however, it is a contrast to the pointlessness of Brexit.


If you want to mark the point where the UK lost independence Suez could be it, as it appeared the significant of MacArthur being Supreme Commander of the allies hadn't registered in Downing Street.


Since then the UK has been a middling size power which fields teams but doesn't run any ball games. Brexit isn't going to change that. At least as part of the EU we were in the clubhouse at the end of the day. We'll now be playing by Trump and Merkels rules, with no say in what they are.


Here's hoping that those two parties believe in level playing field because if they don't we have a real problem.

Ballard

cogito wrote: »

This thread isn't about either NATO or Trump but as you brought it up, let me ask you why America should pay to defend countries that aren't willing to spend money to defend themselves?

Just a technicality but if you look back it was Conrad who brought it up.

Tromking

Unemployment reaches a 42 year low and perhaps more pertinent to this thread is that the number of foreign nationals living and working in the UK increases by 200K to 3.55 million. Where's the evidence of this newly xenophobic and rascist UK that the rabid self-loathing Remainers on here tell us about? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39945782

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

Unemployment reaches a 42 year low and perhaps more pertinent to this thread is that the number of foreign nationals living and working in the UK increases by 200K to 3.55 million. Where's the evidence of this newly xenophobic and rascist UK that the rabid self-loathing Remainers on here tell us about? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39945782

I don't think it's themselves the remainers loath. Your post is a good example of the alternative facts echo chamber of the Right. Anyone who disagrees is a non patriot with some odd neurosis that makes them not want to vote UKIP and read the Daily Mail.

Rinoa

Go for it Nige...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug3O_BbiBks